-
If SARS-CoV-2 were intelligent and sinister to the level of having the motive to kill, not only by influencing its host cell to replicate, but also by influencing the host’s brain to ignore danger signs of backdoor infection when designing enhancement defenses (such as mRNA commands), resulting in breakthroughs by other variants.
The mRNA vs. natural immune system debate goes on, and the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 question isn’t that important compared to the discovery of prevention defenses. COVID-19 vaccines don’t prevent infections – they depend on the human immune system to ultimately do so.
Prophylaxis strategies and discoveries of “COVID killers” are being suppressed when “not approved”. Is this the virus planning this — no — the kind of humans that are turning against other humans who get well from other means, are worse than the SARS-CoV-2 virus — which the immune system can deal with — but one is perplexed by the absurd behavior of human corporations who oppose the preventative measures of individuals. Exercising choice, an individual is free to find his or her own survival approach, and continuing to find what works for an individual’s own good health is a primary, innate right. Finding out that gain-of-function of a virus was human triggered, is shocking, but breakthrough mutations triggered by injection of material into the human body, and adverse effects — including death — should be seriously considered to be the human mistake…if viruses are evasive while immunization campaigns continue, the viruses have won on that battlefront, but those of us whose prophylaxis is robust and kills the virus, have won the battle. I wish the global- level planners could see it.
The overreaching CORPORATE-GLOBAL view of health care choices doesn’t work completely. The right to choose or refuse is a natural person’s right in the USA. The Ninth Amendment alludes to rights people have had before human government existed. Unenumerated rights are as valid as enumerated rights in the USA, particularly when it comes to an individual pursuing LIFE, liberty and happiness, without infringing on “corporate personhood” or on other natural persons.
If a natural person becomes afraid, because of ignorance of the subject of prophylaxis, it follows that knowledge of the real world evidence of efficacy of prophylaxis compounds would alliviate those fears. Veterinary paste/gel 1.87% ivermectin is “Unapproved” because of ignorance of its efficacy against COVID-19 by FDA, yet that efficacy does not require that we know the ORIGIN of SARS-CoV-2, the FDA should consider that Nature provided the ORIGIN of ivermectin in Streptomyces Avermitillis bacteria in soil in Japan, and GAIN-OF-FUNCTION as an antiviral occurred by human efforts to isolate the efficacious portion of the bacterial molecules for beneficial purposes, including ANTIVIRAL PROPERTIES.
With that being said, I repeat, that the ORIGIN OF SARS-CoV-2 is unimportant, and GOF research on the virus is LESS IMPORTANT than using this prophylaxis Ivermectin (itself having a gain-of-function) as an anti-viral (instead of denying its antiviral properties, as the FDA does), with its aporoval it should certainly help to slow this pandemic and possibly end it, as successful as the Merck distribution if Mectizan has been.
It could be THAT simple.
Tell these people.
Excerpts
We need a global network of ‘living’ biofoundries.
Distributed, multi-product, RNA-based manufacturing capabilities will provide increased access to diverse biologics and sustainable pandemic response.
“Given this vaccine breakthrough, it would be reasonable to expect a wave of activity to discover, develop, and deliver new RNA-based biologics – a diversity of organizations; academic, small biotech, private and public research centers around the world flooding clinical facilities with novel, investigational products. All these products could then be tested against diseases that cause millions of deaths per year; thus providing access to these new products, while also securing protection against the next pandemic.
While we see continued and increasing global investments to scale existing mRNA manufacturing capabilities, such investments alone will not be enough to increase the number, diversity, affordability, and pace of discovery for these new biologic treatments, or to provide continuing access to agile, state-of-the-art manufacturing processes likely needed for rapid response to another pandemic.
What’s holding us back? The discovery and development of RNA-based products is still subject to the same, existing limitations chronically afflicting biologics: difficult access to current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) material for clinical trials as well as long and large investments (4-8 years and $300-$500 million dollars) in bespoke, manufacturing processes at dedicated facilities. This limits innovation and creates prohibitive production costs.
Today, RNA scientists trying to develop an innovative product are limited to using laboratory-grade materials in pre-clinical studies. Outside of one of the few biopharma corporations investing in cGMP for RNA-based biologics, most researchers have limited or no access to the know-how and resources required to develop a small-scale manufacturing process required for clinical trials. And even within those corporate environments, lacking a product with an expected net present value nearing a billion dollars, it would be challenging to get priority in the large-scale manufacturing strategy of the company.
R3 seeks to change the dynamics and costs of biologics development and production, addressing the limitations of current manufacturing by establishing RNA as a versatile, deployable, standardized, multi-product platform technology, that: 1) in non-emergency times provides developers and researchers with access to cGMP-formulated RNA for the development and production of a diversity of viable RNA-based products, and 2) in emergency times shifts to needed products at speeds & quantities sufficient to mount a globally coordinated, regionally focused response to a pandemic.”
What are a natural person’s rights to live a life of conscience and of self-health choices? We already have those rights.
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is unimportant compared to the importance of overcomimg the virus by 1) your own health care choices (consent or refusal), 2) your education about what works for you and 3) your real world experience with what works for you. Scientists should be open to acknowledgement of what works, even though their hypotheses of how or why something they are pursuing SHOULD work…doesn’t completely hold true.
We have much to learn, often individually.
🤔